Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7845808" data-attributes="member: 6987520">First off, thanks for doing that. It is nice and concise and easy to address.Let's take optimization out of it then. The issue is with flat proficiency bonus a fighter with all 10's and a wizard with all 10's are just as likely to hit on a melee weapon attack despite the enormous amount of weapon (and presumably) combat training the fighter has had compared to the practically non-existent training a wizard has based on class.Attack bonus isn't but they shouldn't be equal--it makes no sense. You take those all 10's fighter and wizard in plain clothes with daggers and the only reason the fighter would likely win in fight is due to higher HP. Which, as I have said in other posts, is a bloated mechanic that only switches perceived problems in other mechanics to HP.How fast level 1 blinks by depends greatly on the table. As quickly as it is supposed to go by in 5E, why even bother having it? Why not just bloat HP to level 3, give all kinds of stuff, and start there? Oh, wait, a lot of people do just that... Might as well have just 18 levels then.The chain shirt armor thing is my bad. There were two warriors, paladin and ranger, and the paladin wore the chain shirt. I just recalled the lizardfolk's AC and thought that was why (he isn't my character and I've never played one...). So, my apologies for that oversight on my part.As for Ovi's comment, provided both parties are at least average 10's, a level 1 warrior-type should be able to hit more often than a level 1 wizard in combat. And you know what, he doesn't. Yeah, it is only level 1, but so what? It's the beginning, it's where our new characters are at, and it's nonsense IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7845808, member: 6987520"] First off, thanks for doing that. It is nice and concise and easy to address. Let's take optimization out of it then. The issue is with flat proficiency bonus a fighter with all 10's and a wizard with all 10's are just as likely to hit on a melee weapon attack [I]despite[/I] the enormous amount of weapon (and presumably) combat training the fighter has had compared to the practically non-existent training a wizard has based on class. Attack bonus isn't but they shouldn't be equal--it makes [I]no[/I] sense. You take those all 10's fighter and wizard in plain clothes with daggers and the only reason the fighter would likely win in fight is due to higher HP. Which, as I have said in other posts, is a bloated mechanic that only switches perceived problems in other mechanics to HP. How fast level 1 blinks by depends greatly on the table. As quickly as it is supposed to go by in 5E, why even bother having it? Why not just bloat HP to level 3, give all kinds of stuff, and start there? Oh, wait, a lot of people do [I]just[/I] that... Might as well have just 18 levels then. The chain shirt armor thing is my bad. There were two warriors, paladin and ranger, and the paladin wore the chain shirt. I just recalled the lizardfolk's AC and thought that was why (he isn't my character and I've never played one...). So, my apologies for that oversight on my part. As for Ovi's comment, provided both parties are at least average 10's, a level 1 warrior-type should be able to hit more often than a level 1 wizard in combat. And you know what, he doesn't. Yeah, it is [I]only[/I] level 1, but so what? It's the beginning, it's where our new characters are at, and it's nonsense IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification